Cyberjunkie (swatso@optusnet.com.au) [050712 03:32]:

I think it's plainly obvious to you what is going on, and your involvement is not something that can be ruled out just because you say so. However, I do believe Jtdirl may have unintentionally jumped the gun. On the face of it, I suspect that because Jtdirl joined the discussion after the obvious sock puppetry of one "Kangaroopedia", he mistook both Kangaroopedia and Pwqn to be incontestable sock puppets, not knowing of Pwqn's history. I don't believe Pwqn is a sock puppet. Nevertheless, I do find it entirely strange that s/he would just, completely out-of-the-blue, and in contrast to prior edits, edit an obscure topic on Australian government and rehash the same flawed understanding as Skyring. We can all draw conclusions, but I don't suppose there is anyway prove such duplicity. It is good that Pwqn has been unblocked, and s/he does deserve an apology of sorts from Jtdirl. Skyring doesn't.

Well, not really. I just checked the IPs (since Skyring on Australian government topics has been a matter of AC interest) and while Pwqn and Kangaroopedia are definitely the same person, they are *not* also Skyring, unless the box in question is an open proxy. Which I wouldn't assume from the evidence to hand.

...

I see his intemperate and abusive blocking of a good faith editor as something warranting discussion.

I encourage everyone to recognise the emotiveness of this seemingly irrelevant issue. The harassment Jtdirl was subjected to should be considered, and he ought to be given a little bit of leeway. If Pwqn and Kangaroopedia are in some way linked to Skyring, then his actions would be perfectly justifiable. As it is, such a link may not exist or may and not be proven. But let's be clear, there was no abusiveness here and it is bad faith to assume bad faith.

I can't say there's *no* link, but I can say the IP evidence doesn't suggest any link, fwiw. However, Kangaroopedia is a sock of Pwqn, and Pwqn deserves at the absolute least a stern word for blatant sockpuppeteering.

- d.

On 7/12/05, Cyberjunkie swatso@optusnet.com.au wrote:

On 11/07/05, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:>I must stress this point. Zero connection.

...

Zero communication. Not a sockpuppet, not a friend, not anything at all.

I must say, you really can't blame anyone for being suspicious given your intimation that you would indeed use "a different IP address every day" and find "some other editor(s) to present the same facts." I certainly believe those comments to be more than mere braggadocio.

Sheer fantasy, more like. Where did I say I *would* do this?

But you raise an interesting point. Do you personally see anything wrong with asking another editor to act on your behalf? If you yourself were asked by another editor to (say) vote a certain way in a VfD for an article you had never heard of previously, what would you do? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Vicar...

...

I would like to know what is going on, because it looks to me like an editor in good faith has been treated very poorly indeed, and that both he and I deserve apologies, especially from the admin who blocked him.

I think it's plainly obvious to you what is going on,

Indeed it is. I have stated it here quite plainly.

and your involvement is not something that can be ruled out just because you say so.

I have asked for those with access to "sockpuppet-detection" tools to use them. May I suggest that you calm down, read what has been written and stick to the facts?

The reason why I would like IP addresses, ISPs etc compared is because I am quite certain of the outcome. I can say this because I know the result with a certainty that you cannot have. It's plain common sense that I MUST know if another account is a sockpuppet of mine or not. I MUST know if I've communicated with another editor or not. I know the answer, and I'd like to make it as plain as possible.

However, I do believe Jtdirl may have unintentionally jumped the gun.

He blocks a legitimate editor for a month and it's "unintentional"! You astonish me, brother!

The user page where he announces his blocking contained several existing comments, yours among them, where doubt of sockpuppetry is strongly expressed. If jtdirl took action unintentionally, then he must have failed to read the existing discussion. If on the other hand, his action was intentional, then he must have disregarded your advice. How do you feel about this?

He's a party to the dispute, he's in the habit of reverting without discussion (or thought in some cases, as noted by the ArbCom), he blocks a legitimate user for a month and you are trying to defend him?

On the face of it, I suspect that because Jtdirl joined the discussion after the obvious sock puppetry of one "Kangaroopedia", he mistook both Kangaroopedia and Pwqn to be incontestable sock puppets, not knowing of Pwqn's history.

He BLOCKED a legitimate user for a MONTH without doing the most basic of checks. A single mouseclick on "contribs" would have sufficed. How on earth can you defend this?

More to the point, you are completely wrong. Jtdirl blocked Pwqn over a day before Kangaroopedia showed up. I quoted from the list of blocked IP addresses previously, but perhaps if you look at the sequence of events it will be clear to you what happened: "04:52, 10 July 2005, Jtdirl blocked Pwqn (expires 04:52, 10 August 2005) (contribs) (sockpuppet of suspended Skyring, or one of the 'people' he threatened to unlease to continue doctoring articles if he was banned.)"

08:07, 11 July 2005 Kangaroopedia (an obvious sockpuppet) makes his one and only appearance. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=K...

08:20, 11 July 2005, Jtdirl blocked Kangaroopedia (expires 08:20, 11 August 2005) (contribs) (sockpuppet of Skyring or one of those he promised to unleash to push his agenda when banned from certain pages)

I don't believe Pwqn is a sock puppet. Nevertheless, I do find it entirely strange that s/he would just, completely out-of-the-blue, and in contrast to prior edits, edit an obscure topic on Australian government and rehash the same flawed understanding as Skyring. We can all draw conclusions, but I don't suppose there is anyway prove such duplicity.

Where someone comes out of the blue to edit on a matter widely discussed here and on WP, I don't think there is much of a mystery. Pqwn makes the same point that I do - the article is POV on the head of state issue.

It is good that Pwqn has been unblocked, and s/he does deserve an apology of sorts from Jtdirl. Skyring doesn't.

Do you support personal abuse? Jtdirl made some very offensive comments to me. How do you think I feel after reading his little provocations?

...

I see his intemperate and abusive blocking of a good faith editor as something warranting discussion.

I encourage everyone to recognise the emotiveness of this seemingly irrelevant issue. The harassment Jtdirl was subjected to should be considered, and he ought to be given a little bit of leeway.

Cripes. And what about the vitriol that came my way? Even the Arbcom made the observation that it was a bit one-sided.

If Pwqn and Kangaroopedia are in some way linked to Skyring, then his actions would be perfectly justifiable.

Would they? I disagree. An editor is responsible for his or her own edits. I repeat that I have had no contact or communication with Pwqn, but even if I had dictated his precise edits verbatim, it's still up to him as to whether he makes them or not.

Besides which, he's merely correcting a POV statement in the article. His edits are plain common sense, are well backed up with verifiable sources, and are completely in line with wikipolicy.

As it is, such a link may not exist or may and not be proven. But let's be clear, there was no abusiveness here and it is bad faith to assume bad faith.

The facts speak for themselves. Jtdirl blocked a legitimate editor for a month without making the most basic of checks, he did so over an issue in which he has a long history of revert-warring and abusive discussion, and he took the opportunity to take a few more personal abuse shots at me.

I think that it is a clear abuse of admin powers, and it is hard to see any evidence of good faith on jtdirls's part. I'd like to see him explain his actions, admit his errors and apologise to those he has wronged.

-- Peter in Canberra